Lighting help

[Riz]

Apologies in advance for such poor photos. Does anyone else have days where you just cant be bothered and you rush everything and dont think about anything your doing!!

The group shot was with a large window to the right of them. I wasnt sure where to use the flashgun. I bounced a little off the ceiling, but in hindsight maybe direct/fill would have been better? I didnt have a wall behind me to bounce off either?

These other shots were in a conservatory with poor lighting and at night, i didnt have a clue. For some unknown reason i bounced off the ceiling, which had nothing to bounce off!! I was pretty miffed on what to do, again possible just direct/fill? But then wouldnt the background be very dark?

 

[Richard King]

more fundamental issue than that

you base exposure is a mile off

Has exposure compensation been dialled in

 

[EOS_JD]

You can recover these but as said the base exposure is too far under exposed. What mode was camera? What flash and ETTL?

 

[JSER]

The times I say not to use a ceiling, never have never will, after 30+ years in portrait.

Get a cheap Lumiquest probounce £10

 

[arad85]

The times I say not to use a ceiling, never have never will, after 30+ years in portrait.

But using the ceiling is not the reason for the underexposed pictures

 

[EOS_JD]

The times I say not to use a ceiling, never have never will, after 30+ years in portrait.

Get a cheap Lumiquest probounce £10

Edit
The Probounce you use provides a very directional small hard lightsource - Exactly the kind of light NOT to use for a portrait shot. There are other Lmiquest items that allow you to bouince but throw less light forward just enough to lighten shadows and put a catchlight in the eyes.

Bouncing off a wall or a ceiling will provide a very large soft directional light source - using the card provided by a 580EX and the like will help throw some of that light forward.

The issue here is nothing to do with the ceiling. More operator error in the basic exposure setting.

 

[JSER]

But using the ceiling is not the reason for the underexposed pictures

You may wink but ask yourself, did I say it was !

 

[JSER]

Edit
The Probounce you use provides a very directional small hard lightsource - Exactly the kind of light NOT to use for a portrait shot. There are other Lmiquest items that allow you to bouince but throw less light forward just enough to lighten shadows and put a catchlight in the eyes.

Bouncing off a wall or a ceiling will provide a very large soft directional light source - using the card provided by a 580EX and the like will help throw some of that light forward.

The issue here is nothing to do with the ceiling. More operator error in the basic exposure setting.

I too am a "photographer" we all do things differently Sir.

Here is probounce. The upload does no justice to the original.

 

[EOS_JD]

I think you have shown everyione the way NOT to use flash. Look at the highlights on the face shjowing obvious use of flash, the image looks washed out and dark shadow behind the subject! You have little (if any) ambient light in the scene.

 

[JSER]

I think you have shown everyione the way NOT to use flash. Look at the highlights on the face shjowing obvious use of flash, the image looks washed out and dark shadow behind the subject! You have little (if any) ambient light in the scene.

I said this was not the finished item, we all "finish" our end results at some point.

1. I have seen your site I could offer some advice on some shots there but I will not unless you want me to, none of us are perfect especially me.
2. I have done five weddings this year and many other shoots
3. I don't charge, everything I do is free, and if any shot is not liked I offer to re do it again free.
4. I retired at 50 so I do what I do for the pleasure inc. weddings.

And as it was chucking it down, almost dark and shot under a car port at the house, with other considerations, not too bad at all.

I was simply offering advice, your comments were more personal. Now lets all be friends.

 

[arad85]

You may wink but ask yourself, did I say it was !

No, you implied it by posting in the tread....

 

[JSER]

No, you implied it by posting in the tread....

How you work that out is beyond me, what tread, you see, we all make mistakes as I may have but some delight in correcting people, normall I would not.

I will explain in more detail and be more accurate in what I say next time.

 

[EOS_JD]

I said this was not the finished item, we all "finish" our end results at some point.

You posted this as an example of how to use a flash. My opinion is that it is not.

1. I have seen your site I could offer some advice on some shots there but I will not unless you want me to, none of us are perfect especially me.

I didn't offer my shots - you did. Regards my site there are now very old images - I'll find a more recent one and I'll post one if you wish.

2. I have done five weddings this year and many other shoots

You could do 1000s of shoots - this in itself doesn't make anyone a good photographer. So long as you learn from them that is what matters. Proof is in the pudding.

3. I don't charge, everything I do is free, and if any shot is not liked I offer to re do it again free.

Redoing a wedding would cost thousands!! Just because you don't charge and don't have a contract doesn't mean you cannot be sued. My mantra is you pay for what you get.

4. I retired at 50 so I do what I do for the pleasure inc. weddings.

So long as your clients are aware of this then fine but you do yourself and the business of wedding photography a disservice by doing this.

And as it was chucking it down, almost dark and shot under a car port at the house, with other considerations, not too bad at all.

I was simply offering advice, your comments were more personal. Now lets all be friends.

Why were my comments personal? I comented on the image presented and purely based my comments on that. Not saying anything about you as a person in any way as we obviously don't know each other but I am saying the image presented is not what I would call a good advert for a probounce.

Nothing personal just an opinion.

 

[EOS_JD]

The times I say not to use a ceiling, never have never will, after 30+ years in portrait.

Get a cheap Lumiquest probounce £10

Just regards the other posts, your comments certainly implied that the use of a ceiling caused the OP's issue and you implied using a probounce would solve the issue.

 

[Richard King]

The times I say not to use a ceiling, never have never will, after 30+ years in portrait.

Get a cheap Lumiquest probounce £10

The base exposure of the shot (camera / flash / both settings were way off)

The issue with things like the probounce is that they are a one trick pony, and often using them leaves photographers stuck in a lighting rut

Lighting the shot shown well requires the photographer to illuminate quite a wide area, and with one flash, that's going to mean bouncing it off something big

As a photographer my first choice (for this sort of shot) is I walk in the room, look at the shape of it, do the geometry in my head and bounce that flash off of something that will make the lighting source bigger and more even across the room. Wall, ceiling, both - not bothered too much, there are no rules - often going for a corner, gives you the equivalent of 2 or 3 large light sources

If that clearly isn't going to work (no surfaces to bounce off) my next choice is the get the flash off the camera, and fire it through a diffuser

If that isn't and option, then I get the flash off the camera and hold it in my other hand, use ambient as much as possible, gel the flash to match and use as little flash as possible

This of course depends what gear you have, and how committed you are to getting the shot well lit